Delhi HC to hear on July 28 plea to close rear entrance of Cross River Mall's liquor shops

The Delhi High Court on Thursday listed on July 28 hearing a petition seeking directions to close the rear entrance of liquor shops in Shahdara's Cross River Mall claiming it is causing problems for residents as buyers start drinking on spot.

The matter was listed for July 28 as the division bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel, which was slated to hear it today, did not assemble.

The petition, filed by Akhil Bhartiya Muslim Vikas Munch through advocates Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Gufranali, and Mahtab Ali, said that the liquor shops in Cross River Mall were creating problems as buyers start drinking on the road annexed to the rear entrance of the shop, and it leads to increase in crimes in the area.

The matter had on July 7 come up before a single-judge bench of Prathiba M Singh, who had deemed it appropriate to be listed as public interest litigation as per the roster of the court and transferred the matter to a division bench considering the nature of the matter.

The plea submitted that a complaint was also filed with the Delhi Police on November 10, 2018, in order to address the situation and nuisance caused thereby.

Delhi Police had requested the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to close the rear entrance of the liquor shops and accordingly, it was closed, on threat perception and nuisance.

"Delhi Police admitted that the ingress and egress to these wine shops is also a security hazard as security check has to be provided on all the entry points -- outside of each wine shop, instead of at the main gate," the plea said.

"Further, selling of wine is not the duty of the police but of the shop owners. Now, even duty of the police will increase to provide security on all the entrances of said wine shops plus two other entrances at the main gate of the said Mall," it added.

However, the DDA had on June 23, withdrawn the direction for the closing of the back entrance of eight wine shops and allowed them to open the back entrance.

"In the present case, it seems that respondent number 1 (DDA) has not acted fairly and taken a decision to open the rear entrance of the wine shops and DDA is acting whimsically and in an arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide manner," the plea said.

It said that the DDA has not taken into consideration the objections raised by the residents ofthe area, who are facing problems by the opening of the rear entrance of these shops while taking a decision to withdraw the direction.

( With inputs from ANI )